Do Unto Others

[dairygirl4u2c]

i tried putting more thought into this. it wasn't a pretty picture, the process.
hypos, hope this is clearer what im getting at

X looks at porn. A says it's wrong, and that he wants to burn X's stash. X absolutely insists that he desires his stash be left alone- arguing if A wants to follow the golden rule, then he should allow X to do that which he views as an absolute issue of freedom. A would personally view the act of looking at porn as something that he might insist to be able to do, but if he were wrong in more objective senses, he'd want someone to intervene. A recognizes that sometimes though, he'd want someone to defer to him, even if he's objectively wrong, at least when he doesnt realize it. Should A do what he'd want done per the principle of the matter 'intervene if it's something objectively wrong', or should he respect B's wishes given A would also want respect of his wishes in at least some circumstances? Should A follow the principle of deferences here, or should he follow narrowly that he thinks he'd want someont to intervene if he did something wrong in that situation?
A wants to follow the golden rule-- is A more properly following the rule by intervening based upon his own perception of what he'd want, or is he more properly following the rule by not intervening by giving ultimate deference to X's view of the matter, and in many senses what hed want done at least in certain other situations?
----------------------------------------- ----
A eats meat. X thinks it's absolutely wrong. X follows A's line of thinking above, and A argues X's line of thinking. Has X followed the golden rule by intervening? What if we assume that eating meat is not objectively wrong (as even the bible says)? if we say 'porn is objectively right, and meat is objectively okay, so im gonna burn the stash and insist on meat, what if it wasn't so clear?
What if the issues weren't so clear like setting off fire crackers that one person might view in an unsafe way, while the other says it is safe?
--------------
---------------
---------------------
Or, is A ultimately following the rule, given a possible argument, 'what he chooses as the proper response is following the rule by definition of him choosing it'? If we accept that though, then we must accept that A should permit that X is following the golden rule too in the meat case. A should and could argue vehemently that the proper argument is his in the meat situation, but he'd have to accept X is following the rule, at least if A utilizes the rules in a similar fashion given he shouldnt expect anything different.
--------------
If A chose to permit X's porn addiction, or X allowed A to eat meat, are they following the golden rule, given they'd follow the arguments initially posed agaisnt them instead? If we can't say that this is the proper following of the rule, how does one fully comply with the rule?
Again, Is the answer based on what they ultimately would decide by definition of their decision?
Is this a matter of consistency, or is there a "necessarily" right approach, eg, A should or shouldnt intervene? etc
-----------------------
Could it be said that a person is only following the golden rule when they are consistent? Wouldnt it be often the case that a person picks and chooses when to do things like "defer" or "not defer" instead of having a consistent developed ethical system? If the golden rule is one of the best things that we should aspire to, shouldnt we strive to form a more consistent system, then? or at least have the thorught processes for what to do in each new case that arises?



id imagine that given i thought this through with analogies, that there's some broader principles that could probably be developed, given i didnt have a means of articulating it without reasoning my way there. that's usually how development of new ideas transpire. we could label the concepts 'irrevocable deference' or 'non-irrevocable' deference' etc.

[Catholic Fox]

[img]http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a12/taylor_158/lolwut.jpg[/img]

[Selah]

[img]http://dunzmovie.wippiespace.com/Watermelon_lol_wut.jpg[/img]

[SaintOfVirtue]

Is this for real?

[BibleReader]

DairyGirl...

You do pose some valid questions, albeit an odd way to ask them.

Your logic however, lacks some incentive. The golden rule is something many children are taught as a way to put their selves in another person's shoes, so to speak. In reality, that is not what we are to do. Your situations, like all those in life, should be sought out in scripture. The golden rule in scripture is "love your neighbor as your self" and "love God." Quite simple, and very similar to treat others as you would like to be treated.

There are ways the bible tells us to deal with other people. Generally it falls into two categories, those who are fellow brethren in Christ, and those of the world. In no sense, does the bible give any one person the authority to infringe on another person's desires. If you have a problem with a fellow Christian, then confront him/her and tell them your grievance. If it be a question of morality, we are to go to them out of love; do not do it out of spite, condemnation, or judgment. Show them your concern for their general welfare (even spiritual welfare, sin separates us from God); here it would be wise to show them through scripture that they are wrong. In all honesty, if what they are doing doesn't sincerely cause you hurt, instead of anger, hate, superiority or anything like that, then you may want to consider why you are confronting them.

Christ himself talks of the issue of sin within the Church in Matthew 18:
[quote name='Matthew 18:15-17']
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.[/quote]

Galatians 6 says to deal with others' sin with a "spirit of gentleness."

The true golden rule tells us the purpose of confronting others about their sins. When you love someone and you love God, then it would be your greatest desire to help them remove that sin so that they may come closer to God, because it is God's desire and it would be the most loving thing for you to care for their spiritual well being.

We are to reflect God's love in dealing with others in all areas.

To address each topic specifically...

The first, can be dealt with above as Christ has described. If they are not a member of the body of Christ, then you have no reason or motive to help them stop sinning. You motive should be salvation.

The second, there is a lot to be dealt with here. There are several verses that apply. If X is offended by seeing others eat meat, then X should not watch others eat meat. There is no scriptural reference that says "eating meat is bad." There are locations that talk about what meats are to be eaten and which are not. Furthermore, "It in not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but rather what comes out." If X needs to confront someone about this, I would examine their motives, is it really a crusade, or is it true concern?

Lastly, there are very few gray areas, and if we, out of love, followed more closely the words of God, then these situations would arise less. When you consider these issues, and confrontation remember other general rules as well...

Don't gossip.

Don't listen to gossip.

Sin is to be confronted.

Sin is to be hated.

All people are to be loved, no matter what.

Examine your self firsthand.

Take time to meditate on the matter, pray and seek wisdom.

There is little need to bring this situation to any other person, except as stated above.

If you remember LOVE LOVE LOVE...and examine God's love, then you will find a much more clear approach to your problem solving and confrontation with other people.

Edited May 30, 2010 by BibleReader

[Semper Catholic]

Destroying a porn stash is a strict violation of bro code. Now if something were to happen to X then A must take it upon himself to delete said stash from computer/under his bed before X's parents come to collect his things.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' date='30 May 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1275238334' post='2120706']
Destroying a porn stash is a strict violation of bro code. Now if something were to happen to X then A must take it upon himself to delete said stash from computer/under his bed before X's parents come to collect his things.
[/quote]

Try posting something constructive. Including something vaguely resembling Catholic belief would also be appreciated, since your screen name obviously lacks some qualifiers.

[Selah]

[quote]Destroying a porn stash is a strict violation of bro code. Now if something were to happen to X then A must take it upon himself to delete said stash from computer/under his bed before X's parents come to collect his things. [/quote]

how repulsive.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' date='30 May 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1275238334' post='2120706']
Destroying a porn stash is a strict violation of bro code. Now if something were to happen to X then A must take it upon himself to delete said stash from computer/under his bed before X's parents come to collect his things.
[/quote]
Stop trolling.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' date='30 May 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1275238334' post='2120706']
Destroying a porn stash is a strict violation of bro code. Now if something were to happen to X then A must take it upon himself to delete said stash from computer/under his bed before X's parents come to collect his things.
[/quote]
I was just at Sears, they had a sale on tools... didn't know Phatmass had a one too.

[Hilde]

SCANDAL!

[Selah]

[quote]
I was just at Sears, they had a sale on tools... didn't know Phatmass had a one too. [/quote]

Oh SNAP!

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='30 May 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1275265297' post='2120873']
I was just at Sears, they had a sale on tools... didn't know Phatmass had a one too.
[/quote]

WIN.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='29 May 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1275168737' post='2120325']
i tried putting more thought into this. it wasn't a pretty picture, the process.
hypos, hope this is clearer what im getting at

X looks at porn. A says it's wrong, and that he wants to burn X's stash. X absolutely insists that he desires his stash be left alone- arguing if A wants to follow the golden rule, then he should allow X to do that which he views as an absolute issue of freedom. A would personally view the act of looking at porn as something that he might insist to be able to do, but if he were wrong in more objective senses, he'd want someone to intervene. A recognizes that sometimes though, he'd want someone to defer to him, even if he's objectively wrong, at least when he doesnt realize it. Should A do what he'd want done per the principle of the matter 'intervene if it's something objectively wrong', or should he respect B's wishes given A would also want respect of his wishes in at least some circumstances? Should A follow the principle of deferences here, or should he follow narrowly that he thinks he'd want someont to intervene if he did something wrong in that situation?
A wants to follow the golden rule-- is A more properly following the rule by intervening based upon his own perception of what he'd want, or is he more properly following the rule by not intervening by giving ultimate deference to X's view of the matter, and in many senses what hed want done at least in certain other situations?
----------------------------------------- ----
A eats meat. X thinks it's absolutely wrong. X follows A's line of thinking above, and A argues X's line of thinking. Has X followed the golden rule by intervening? What if we assume that eating meat is not objectively wrong (as even the bible says)? if we say 'porn is objectively right, and meat is objectively okay, so im gonna burn the stash and insist on meat, what if it wasn't so clear?
What if the issues weren't so clear like setting off fire crackers that one person might view in an unsafe way, while the other says it is safe?
--------------
---------------
---------------------
Or, is A ultimately following the rule, given a possible argument, 'what he chooses as the proper response is following the rule by definition of him choosing it'? If we accept that though, then we must accept that A should permit that X is following the golden rule too in the meat case. A should and could argue vehemently that the proper argument is his in the meat situation, but he'd have to accept X is following the rule, at least if A utilizes the rules in a similar fashion given he shouldnt expect anything different.
--------------
If A chose to permit X's porn addiction, or X allowed A to eat meat, are they following the golden rule, given they'd follow the arguments initially posed agaisnt them instead? If we can't say that this is the proper following of the rule, how does one fully comply with the rule?
Again, Is the answer based on what they ultimately would decide by definition of their decision?
Is this a matter of consistency, or is there a "necessarily" right approach, eg, A should or shouldnt intervene? etc
-----------------------
Could it be said that a person is only following the golden rule when they are consistent? Wouldnt it be often the case that a person picks and chooses when to do things like "defer" or "not defer" instead of having a consistent developed ethical system? If the golden rule is one of the best things that we should aspire to, shouldnt we strive to form a more consistent system, then? or at least have the thorught processes for what to do in each new case that arises?



id imagine that given i thought this through with analogies, that there's some broader principles that could probably be developed, given i didnt have a means of articulating it without reasoning my way there. that's usually how development of new ideas transpire. we could label the concepts 'irrevocable deference' or 'non-irrevocable' deference' etc.
[/quote]


I think that you have a good point. Religions can lead people to vigilantism -- in the name of doing good. It's not that great of a logical leap, as you point out. Historically the Crusades are an example.

I think that people often dodge facing up to their own sins and shortcomings by focusing on other peoples instead. I could be wrong but I would guess that most vigilantes are people who aren't overly successful -- in their own lives. Perhaps it's human nature, and setting guidelines won't work. People who need to vent frustrations will just find a way to rationalize crossing the line.

There almost seems to be an attitude -- in all religious groups at times -- of "Ha! We're better than they are because we're (Christians)!" Sometimes I think that the real reason for religious bumper stickers on cars is to mark those people as superior -- rather than to spread the word of god. I think it's easy to spot genuine Christians because they're friendly with everybody. The ones with ulterior motives are only friendly with a few select people -- and they're quick to condemn everyone else (Which I've been guilty of myself at times..)

Edited May 31, 2010 by southern california guy

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='southern california guy' date='30 May 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1275280358' post='2121043']
I think that you have a good point. Religions can lead people to vigilantism -- in the name of doing good. It's not that great of a logical leap, as you point out. Historically the Crusades are an example.
[/quote]

Dude, don't be dissing the crusades.